On Friday 02 September 2005 03:21, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> Yes, a technical one. Given that the recommended way to call
> update-rc.d is currently using the argument "defaults", achiving the
> granularity described in to document above would require modifying all
> packages calling update-rc.d .
that's not technical, that's social it's basically:
yes we could do that but it would require a not insignificant amount of work
given the amount of people I'f seen ask (on amongst others debian-devel) way
we don't follow the LSB runlevel setup, I'd say there's enough people
interested in this to do the work once it's decided it won't be ignored.
> If we were to go to that effort, I'd suggest enhancing update-rc.d such
> that in place of "defaults" a list of classes could be provided,
> something like: "multi,network,gui" which would map by default to 2-5,
> the mapping presumably defined in a config file.
sound like the LSB's Default-Start and Default-Stop headers for init-scripts
> Not really sure that it's worth the effort.
If we can tell people here's what needs for conversion to the LSB-default to
happen, I really don't think that's gonna be a problem
(the companies involved in the DCC have mentioned LSB-compliance as an
explicit goal and should be willing to do part of it, and i've seen several
posts wanting it on devel)
Off course for it to happen we first need to agree we want it to happen
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
Attachment:
pgpmnqMFyfcec.pgp
Description: PGP signature